Ben Shapiro is a good, thoughtful writer who, by consensus, just clobbered Piers Morgan. I can’t stand to watch or listen to leftists, so had to wait for the transcript to judge his performance personally. The text is here.
Shapiro was certainly fearless, and his defense of liberty is much appreciated. But his debating tactics need vast improvement. Debate is like any other form of war; holding your ground is good…except when it prevents you from seizing the enemy’s.
MORGAN: I know the second amendment. What I haven’t heard is one coherent reason why any civilian in America needs an an AR-15, military style, assault weapon. Tell me why you need one.
SHAPIRO: I told you, why the general population of America, law abiding citizens, need AR-15s.
MORGAN: Why do they need those weapons?
SHAPIRO: They need them for the prospective possibility for the resistance of tyranny.
“Nobody needs that!” is one of the Left’s basic tropes, and Shapiro was obviously ready for it. So do you see his mistake? It’s a huge one; by defending against Morgan’s question, Shapiro validates it. But how can a prepared person not seize Morgan’s ground? Why on Earth do freedom fighters accept the tyrannical premise in the first place?
MORGAN: Why do they need those weapons?
WORMME: Since when do rights depend on needs?
See the difference? Shapiro missed a golden opportunity to seize ground.
WORMME: Do people need swimming pools?
MORGAN: What does that have to do with guns?
The rest of my talk with Morgan would have been a relentless assault, not a defense. Eliminating pools and spas would save about four hundred children per year. Unlike a ban on booze or guns, that’s an enforceable prohibition. Nor is there an actual Amendment codifying the right to (pool) party. So why aren’t we banning recreational H2O? Because that offends even the most atrophied belief in liberty. There’s no hope of reaching would-be tyrants like Morgan, of course…
MORGAN: Do you know how absurd you sound?
…but others would notice as his house of cards collapsed. Not that you can build a house with a single card: Americans don’t need rifles, therefore they shouldn’t have them. Well, people’s needs are exactly the same as any animal’s: air, water, food, and shelter. And there is a perfect description of the animal life: solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
There’s only one thing worse that Hobbsian existence, and that’s living under an all-powerful State. Because when the State decides that you don’t “need” food? You don’t get food.
Many thanks to Shapiro and everyone else who fights the good fight. But geez, how can they concede the “need” argument for a single second? I feel like Casey Stengel watching his ’62 Mets, and I share his mournful cry.
Can’t anybody here play this game?
>>> What I haven’t heard is one coherent reason why any civilian in America needs an an AR-15, military style, assault weapon. Tell me why you need one.
A. Because there are criminals who do have them.
A-2. Because if my home is invaded, a few round in the air will most likely and peaceably send the intruders away. If not, I have a better chance than they do.
A-3. If the food/water supply runs dry, there will be panic and looting within 1-2 weeks. How does one defend their house (containing rich supplies of food/water/booze) from thousands of people?
Even if a magic wish could immediately take all guns away from everyone in the US, how soon would criminals have them? Well, seeing as the border down south is so porous, guns would be here in no time.
BTW, I love your attack/rebuttal – “Since when do rights depend on needs?” Perfect!
Think how many lives would be saved, and gas too, if all cars had governors limiting speed to 15 MPH? Wouldn’t that be great, not one death from a car accident! Think of the lives we could save. Probably would save more children’s lives than those killed by (excuse me, “WITH”, not “by”) AR-15s.
Excellent points, all. You left out the Zombie Apocalypse, but I guess “A-3” covers that scenario. Especially when we get to Donner Party conditions.
And I don’t remember seeing the “warning shots” point made elsewhere. The gun grabbers are trying everything simultaneously, including limiting magazine capacity. “Nobody needs more than 10 rounds in a clip!”
It’s best to turn the “need” argument back upon things the gun grabbers like. But it might be fun to infuriate them with a “well, I don’t intend to fire warning shots myself, but some people like having that option.”
If one is limited to 10 round clips, the warning shots in the air turns into warning shots are for those left standing. Plus, I’m not a great shot, so having more round available without reload keeps me safer.
It doesn’t take long to reload a new clip at this point, but did you see where they also want to make it more difficult and time consuming to insert a fresh clip?
Yes, they’re attacking on all fronts simultaneously. Unfortunately, they will get some cosmetic “victory” that falsely validates their argument.
Earlier today I wondered just what percentage of the “nobody needs an assault magazine!” folks had ever fired a gun in their lives. What their groupings are at the range under calm, controlled conditions. Then how many of them have been in fights or terrifying situations trying to execute precise actions while awash in adreneline.
My guess would be zero…except it isn’t really a guess.
Pingback: ON TYRANNY. | World's Only Rational Man